On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 3:59 PM, Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 2:32 AM, Rushabh Lathia <rushabh.lathia@gmail.com> wrote: >> Please find attached latest patch. > > The latest patch still applies (with some fuzz), builds and the > regression tests pass. > > I see that Robert made a number of changes and posted a v6 along with > some numbers which he described as lacklustre, but then fixed a row > estimate problem which was discouraging parallel joins (commit > 0c2070ce). Rushabh posted a v7 and test results which look good. >
Are you suggesting that commit 0c2070ce has helped to improve performance if so, I don't think that has been proved? I guess the numbers are different either due to different m/c or some other settings like scale factor or work_mem.
I don't really think 0c2070ce is the exact reason. I run the tpch runs
with the same same setting as what Robert was running. I haven't
noticed any regression with the runs. For the last runs I also
uploaded the tpch run outputs for the individual queries for the
reference.
> As > far as I can see there are no outstanding issues or unhandled review > feedback. I've had a fresh read through of the latest version and > have no further comments myself. > > I've set this to ready-for-committer now. If I've misunderstood and > there are still unresolved issues from that earlier email exchange or > someone else wants to post a review or objection, then of course > please feel free to set it back. > > BTW There is no regression test supplied. I see that commit 5262f7a4 > adding parallel index scans put simple explain output in > "select_parallel" to demonstrate the new kind of plan being created;
It has added both explain statement test and a test to exercise parallel index scan code.
Thanks for the reference. I added the similar tests for GM in the